Talk:Fred Luddy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What, exactly is the concern here; I'm happy to address it, but I'm not quite sure what the problem is. We'd very much like to get into Wikipedia because we think it's a great source for information. So we modelled our entries directly off of those for Saleforce.com and Mark Benioff.
So our thinking was that if those two were copacetic, so too would our own.
Our customers include a number of fortune 500 companies who have specifically mentioned that they have been unable to find information about the company. This was an attempt on our part to try to address their concerns.
Given this situation, how would you recommend we go about getting information into the wiki?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.17.34.182 (talk • contribs) 20:40 UTC, May 12, 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, a vehicle for advertising or an indiscriminate collection of information (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.) Autobiographical entries are frowned upon (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). To be included on Wikipedia, the subject of an article must meet notability guidelines and information must be independently verifiable. Given that a Google search for "Fred Luddy" gives only 75 hits, of which <20 look unique, I doubt that Fred Luddy meets those requirements. You are free to remove the proposed deletion tag if you wish, if so the decision of whether or not to delete the article will then be decided by a discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Thanks. Oldelpaso 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've worked with Fred for a dozen years and, yes, I got dragged into this because Fred is slightly miffed that his page is being nuked. As far as he can tell all of his competitors have got wiki pages which is, lets be honest, de-facto free advertising, while he can't seem to get a wiki page. Several of his peer companies like Sugar CRM (founded 2 months after Service-Now) have been in wiki for nearly a year (Sugar has since August of 2005 when its employee count wasn't much different from the current Service-Now employee count so I'm not seeing that as a noteworthy differentiator).
I can appreciate that GM or AT&T we are not, but ultimately this policy doesn't seem particularly consistent.
In any event, if you've got to delete it, delete it; it's pointless for us to get into a post with a Moderator (not to mention ill advised). All the same, we did want to object to what we consider to be a somewhat capricious standard of inclusion.
--Pat Casey 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not an administrator, I am just a regular user, and came across these two related pages while looking through new pages. SugarCRM looks an odd one as the page covers both a software package and the company which created it. It was itself listed for deletion, and survived due to evidence of notability on SourceForge and in Business Week. if you can provide similar evidence, and cite your sources, then this article and/or Service-now.com may end up being kept. Oldelpaso 22:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are perhaps some notable links, if they don't pass your requirements, I understand: http://www.sddt.com/Technology/industrywatch.cfm?PublicationDate=2003-08-25 http://www.iapplianceweb.com/story/OEG20011024S0086.htm Business Week wasn't so kind: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_44/b3806085.htm Salaries are popular in wikipedia: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20020630-9999_1b30salary2.html Other companies press releases: http://www.marimba.com/news/releases/10-2001/Peregrine_Xanadu_Marimbav9Final.shtml http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/980751 http://www.basistech.com/press-releases/2000/japanese-morphological-analyzer-0007.html http://www.socaltech.com/news/050707.html
Cheers, --Fred Luddy 12 May 2006 00:03 UTC
Comment: The above links provide a basis for your claim of notability. However, there are a few problems with the article:
- It is apparently autobiographical. Though not prohibited on Wikipedia, it is not recommended as per oldelpaso's note above. These articles tend to raise a red flag.
- There are no references in the article to verify any of the information.
- Notability info as shown above would provide references that might help the article, if incorporated into the article.
- The article reads like a resumé, rather than an encyclopedia biography. For example "Mr. Luddy" vs Luddy. Check out other biographies of similar people for examples.
Consider making some edits to the article to improve it. With some of the issues addressed, the article may be kept. —ERcheck @ 04:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
At this point the Fred Luddy article is a fairly close stylistic and content clone to that of Marc_Benioff, a relatively similar (albeit slightly more notable) figure in the software industry. I appreciate that Fred Luddy got himself red flagged by writing his own article, but at this article being held to a different standard from his peers precisely because he got on folks radar? --Pat Casey 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would not say that the Benioff article is a shining example of a well written biography. It does not have any references (for which I have now tagged it). I suggest that you check out the Manual of Style for biographies as well the notability and verifiablity references give above by Oldelpaso.
- Note that in the biography Manual of Style (MOS), it suggests notability should be in the intro. In light of the fact that the service-now.com article is at issue, perhaps highlighting a general description of his notability, followed by the positions that he is most noted for, might be helpful. —ERcheck @ 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
